Re: i0001: EPRs as identifiers - alternative proposal


On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 01:00:27PM -0500, Francisco Curbera wrote:
> Rationale
> =======
> EPRs are not identifiers, only addresses. Let me explain.

FWIW, after the RefProps/RefParams discussion, I now agree that EPRs
are not necessarily identifiers.  But I don't see them as addresses
either, since addresses are identifiers[1].

IMO, the best way to think of this is with the EPR as a 2-tuple with an
identifier and some contextual state, in exactly the same way we think
of http URIs and cookies.  So, I believe that an EPR is an identifier
iff it contains no contextual state, i.e. no RefParams.

> One remaining question is whether EPR (as addresses) should be URIs but I
> think this should be opened as a separate issue.

I disagree.  I think it's part and parcel.  But no biggie, as long as it
gets its day in court. 8-)

So unfortunately, I'm -1 on the proposal.  And I'd consider writing up
my own proposal, but it involves removing RefProps (to provide a single
identifying data element), and I don't see that flying just yet.  But
we'll see where DavidB and Hugo get on that front ...


Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 05:02:46 UTC